Americanization Versus National Culture Essay

Changes are realities of life regardless of one’s origin, skin color, beliefs and traditions. These are unavoidable facts that affect all living creatures on earth in both ways-good and bad. Like all other changes, globalization is one concept born as early as 1960s and has rapidly influenced literally all peoples even those at the edge of the world. In fact, the United Nations Organization (UNO) declared the 1960’s as the dawn of global development (Dass, Rakesh 2008). Drivers of globalization include economic, political, cultural and social factors that eventually led to the spread and elimination of traditions and practices in all aspects of human life. The bottom line is that globalization has two faces: the beneficial and the devastating one. One’s point of argument will depend on which side is he in at the moment. Although the reality that globalization has been advantageous in some ways, this paper would try to prove that globalization has more devastating effects especially on human culture and identity. In particular, this paper would like to point out the multi-faceted risks posed by globalization trend in South East Asian nations. Cultural differences are sacred things that each person is required to respect. It is this culture and tradition that South East Asian nations are rich of and their individual history will prove this argument right. â€Å"Culture is used by the organizers of society – politicians, theologians, academics, and families – to impose and ensure order, the rudiments of which change over time as need dictates† (Rothkopf, David 1997). It is this culture that identifies Asians from the Americans and the Europeans. The differences should not however be treated as walls that hinder other nation to relate with others because the significance of international relations for national development should also be acknowledged. It happened however that globalization forced each nation to open not only their doors but also their windows to let the influence of the Western culture peep in and eventually seep deep into its culture and tradition. Globalization and the technological revolution will also have a significant impact on the diversity and convergence of cultures (Huntington, Samuel 1993, p. 22). We can take culture in its two meanings. The first meaning encompasses a people’s lifestyle, folkways, traditions, art, literature, dance, music and so on. Culture by this definition has to be preserved, nurtured and enriched. It links people to the origins of whom and what they are. It is what binds them together. It gives them their identity beyond the family. It is the source of their sense of self-worth. It imparts meaning to their lives. The diversity of people’s cultures and the interaction among them enrich the human race. Culture comprehends a people’s set of values and attitudes, their outlook on life, their ways of thinking and working, and their mindsets. It is people’s cultures in this sense that globalization and technology are disrupting. In this sense, cultures have to adjust in order for people and nations and regions to be competitive in the global economy (Achenbach, Joel 2001, p. 17). If science and technology, especially information and communications technology and biotechnology, are the arena and weapons for global competition, nations and companies have to undertake a massive re-allocation of resources to education, training, research and development, and the infrastructure for the knowledge industries. National and corporate priorities have to be reset. Legal assumptions and institutional arrangements have to be re-examined. Just as importantly, people’s mindsets have to change. They have to acquire a scientific bent, develop a certain rigor in their thinking, and cultivate the capacity and inclination to turn knowledge into practical applications. People have to develop the willingness to question knowledge that is handed down and challenge intellectual authority – and be allowed to do so. Personal relationships have to be tempered by the objective application of law and rules in the conduct of government and business. In sum, the proverbial paradigm shift must take place. â€Å"Language, religion, political and legal systems, and social customs are the legacies of victors and marketers and reflect the judgment of the marketplace of ideas throughout popular history† (Rothkopt, David 1997). Rothkopt also stressed that culture is often seen as living artifacts, bits and pieces that are being passed from generation to generation through the processes of indoctrination, popular acceptance, and unthinking adherence to old ways. This way, cultural differences lead one nation to consider globalization a threat to one’s culture and eventually to one’s identity. Whether it is the rapid proliferation of Starbucks in Tokyo, changing realities of the real estate market in Greater Vancouver, the recent boom in Korean popular music and TV dramas in Taipei, or the widespread employment of Filipino maids in Hong Kong, the fabric of everyday life in many cities in the Asia Pacific region are comprised of increasingly transnational elements. Intensification of foreign direct investment, trade, cross-national corporate alliances and mergers, cultural exchanges, and university tie-ups have fortified world-wide links between people, organizations, regions, and governments of various nation-states. Terms such as â€Å"global economy,† â€Å"cultural diversity,† and â€Å"global environment† have wended their way into the lexicons of major business schools, while at the same time, a constellation of demonstrations and discontents have been stuffed into the category of â€Å"the anti-globalization movement. † Observing these trends and changes is an easy enough task, requiring little more than a walk along any major commercial street in any major city, or a casual perusal of university course catalogues. How one analyses and understands the changes associated with â€Å"globalization† are another issue, one that presents a considerably more complex intellectual problem. Does â€Å"globalization† writ-large promote greater understanding of cultural similarities and differences, or does it merely diffuse a wider array of simplistic and essentialist stereotypes? Does globalization propagate exploitation and income disparity, or does it offer the individual freedom of choice and convenience of standardization? Do these shifts bring the world closer together, consuming the same hamburgers in a new global community, or is this a homogenizing cultural imperialism, obliterating local cultures in MacWorld synchronicity? How does the nexus of global and local inform individual and collective identities and cultures? First, the historical context behind globalization needs to be kept in mind. While there are some obvious discontinuities as well as continuities, European expansion, modern colonialism, modernization, and globalization constitute different media for the intensification of global ties. For example, certain clothing practices for men in the Asia Pacific (such as wearing ties in suffocating humid midsummer heat) were initially disseminated via Western European imperialism and colonialism. The use of modern statistical methods to measure economic output is yet another example of a â€Å"global† standard originally propagated through the practices of colonial administrations throughout the region. This is not to suggest that the process of globalization can be explained solely by tracing the expansion of European notions of â€Å"civilization† and â€Å"modernity† (both terms which need to be examined critically before blind invocation) or that there is a universal teleology that history must inevitably follow, but to point out that the decoupling of cultural experience from particular geographic locales is not an unprecedented phenomenon. By acknowledging the historical precedents, we may focus our analysis on what might be different or new about the term â€Å"globalization† or whether we ought to discard the term entirely due to the absence of any meaningful conceptual or descriptive value-added. For example, some scholars have argued, however vaguely, that the speed, scale, and scope of these changes and flows have accelerated over the last fifty years. The oft-cited acceleration in the development and diffusion of communication technologies has facilitated the dissemination of information and intensified financial transactions. Thus, while commodity trade may be less global than in pre-1945 years, the amount of money traded in foreign currency exchange dealings or the capital flows through various investments is more intense now than before. Second, it is important to examine the underlying assumptions and operating definitions undergirding much of the debate. The ways concepts such as â€Å"culture† or â€Å"global† or â€Å"local† are defined invariably affect the analytical approach taken. For example, â€Å"culture† is a frequently contested term. Many disciplines such as anthropology, having devoted considerable efforts to grappling with the concept, consider it a central analytical issue. Conversely, some approaches in other disciplines might exclude it from analysis, feeling that â€Å"culture† is too vague a black box to constitute a meaningful independent variable. If one takes the former view, cultural industries and exchanges are central to any understanding of any economic, political, social, and technological change. If one adheres to the latter approach, then it makes sense to distinguish between â€Å"globalization,† confined to economic activities, and â€Å"internationalization,† applied to ‘cultural’ interactions. In another example, some scholars invoke Manichean contrasts between an idealized â€Å"local† or â€Å"traditional† culture and a menacing â€Å"global† or â€Å"modern† culture. If one associates â€Å"local† with sites of national purity and resistance to rising tide of global capitalists, â€Å"local† culture should presumably be protected and maintained. If one defines â€Å"local† culture as reactionary, ignorant, and parochial, than one would presumably wish that â€Å"global† culture ‘enlightens’ â€Å"local† culture. Such latent normative values need to be fore-grounded for any meaningful discussion to occur. Further complicating the issue is the fact that there are increasingly fewer pockets of isolated, undiluted fonts of â€Å"local† identity left, at least in the major urban centers. For example, some commentators in Korea assert that McDonald’s is undermining traditional Korean culinary culture, and promoting obesity in young Korean children. However, the employees and managers of McDonald’s in Korea are Korean, as are its customers (Choe, Yong-shik. 2001). For better or for worse, the reality is that to make it more essential the visions of ‘good’ â€Å"local† and â€Å"traditional† cultures elide the fact that cultures — at the global, national, regional, local, and individual levels — change over time, and are often retroactively reconstituted to serve political interests of a particular moment, place, or institution.